Organisation Against Tax Abuse (Outa) on Thursday blasted what it said was the South African National Road Agency Limited’s (Sanral’s) attempts to discredit any action questioning the procedures surrounding the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (GFIP) and the lawfulness of levying e-tolls on the associated upgraded roads.

Standing firm in its position, Outa asserted that it was not Sanral’s enemy; however, the organisation wanted answers and would not stand down on questioning any “irrational and unlawful State decisions [and] highly questionable capital project expenditure” that placed “undue pressure and unnecessary costs” on taxpayers.

Addressing media in Randburg in response to a press conference held by Sanral earlier this  week to provide its view on Outa’s position paper on the construction costs of the GFIP, chairperson Wayne Duvenage said the organisation had delved deeper into the e-toll saga and was preparing to release more “damning” information in the next few weeks.

“[This] will further substantiate our claim that the GFIP was significantly overpriced,” he said.

Outa claimed that the GFIP was overpriced by between 152% and 321% when compared with road construction pricing around the world.

It further stated that no meaningful or sufficient response on this had emerged from Sanral.

At a press briefing on Tuesday, Sanral had said its requests for Outa to substantiate its claims of irregularities in the construction and management of the GFIP had gone unanswered.

However, Outa said Sanral had expected answers to 420 questions within two weeks, which it felt was unreasonable.

It was in researching the answers to Sanral’s questions that Outa had unveiled more information that would lay the basis for a soon-to-be-released updated position paper.

“If indeed the GFIP was significantly overpriced, the impact on the decision to toll has serious consequences for the public and the economy,” said Duvenage.

Outa’s position paper, released in February, had compared 11 case studies, adjusting for pertinent variables to assess cost variance between them and the GFIP, with the average comparisons showing overpricing of up to 321%.

“This is not an error as Sanral claimed, this is our position and we stand by our rationale used in this paper,” Duvenage asserted.

This was in response to Sanral’s earlier press briefing, during which it questioned the figures provided in Outa’s position paper and accused Outa of “advocating lawlessness” by urging the public not to “pay tolls lawfully”, a statement Outa “takes exception to”.

Duvenage said it was “not unlawful” to not pay e-tolls and that the public was “refusing to submit to an unlawful instruction to pay tolls”, a stance Outa supported.

Despite Sanral stating that the courts had found in its favour on the decision to toll, clarification was still needed around whether the levies being tolled on the Gauteng freeways were lawful, stated Outa.

“The lawfulness of government’s decision to declare Gauteng’s freeways as toll roads stands to be challenged defensively,” he said, adding that there was no standing precedent in any court supporting this.

“The public, therefore, has every right to stand their ground and to disobey that which has been introduced unlawfully.”

Outa reiterated that its agenda was to seek lawful, transparent and cooperative governance by South Africa’s State-owned institutions and would continue to “ask hard questions” on efficiencies, high costs, poor judgment, decisions and conduct by these entities.

“This fight is not over . . . We are very ready,” he concluded.